User talk:Saxifrage/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive from 00:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC). Leave new messages at my talk page.

The history of this archive begins at this diff and ends at this diff.

Totse[edit]

I suspect you reverted the wrong post. (I fixed it, but let me know if my assumption is wrong.)  — Saxifrage |  16:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd probably opened the old version in a tab but not yet hit edit until a few minutes later, and so I didn't get the edit conflict window. I'll try and keep the delay between open, edit, and save down in future. Thanks for your vigilance. --W(t) 16:12, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet[edit]

Hi SF, I've deleted the sockpuppet tag from GS's page, because it isn't a sockpuppet account. The first sentence of the policy page says: "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Gavin is editing under one name only and I've been keeping a close eye on things; if he tries to edit under any other name, he'll be blocked. Everyone knows who he is now, so there's no dishonesty. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Of course there is a problem with this argument... if you read "edits under more than one name" to have to refer to active present tense for both names instead of spread out through time, that means that SlimVirgin's labeling of Existentializer as a sockpuppet of Enviroknot is also false, as Enviroknot is blocked and can't actively edit in the present tense. I would think a large number of the identified sockpuppets wouldn't be if SlimVirgin's interpretation were followed to the letter. Sockpuppets are edits made throughout time in different identities by the same person and don't have to overlap chronologically. DreamGuy 09:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
It's a fine line. Presumably, Gavin intends that he will no longer control those other "socks", while Enviroknot would happily still be controlling his other "socks" and anything else he can. It's difficult to execute policy if one it always going to look at intent, but in this case it's easy: if Slim has mistaken Gavin the Chosen's intentions, then that will be because GS becomes active again. At that point a tonne of unsympathetic bricks will fall on him.
Which is to say, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt in this case. Gavin isn't malicious like Enviroknot, just inept and woefully good-sense challenged.  — Saxifrage |  18:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

for your well-reasoned intervention. I agree with everything you say. I have been trying to detach myself from the discussion for a while now, but hope springs eternal that I can find one last argument that convinces him to give up. I have been thinking for a while that it would make sense to move the whole mess of a discussion to a separate "Special archive" talk page, but I would not be the right person to do it. On your advice, I will do my very best to leave the discussion alone. Thanks again,. Ground Zero | t 21:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It's always a risk sticking one's neck out between two factions, but if I've given one person a bit of perspective it was worth it this time. Thanks for honestly considering my suggestion.  — Saxifrage |  22:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Saxifrage[edit]

Hello. I believe I know who you are, but I don't want to give away any of your personal details here on Wikipeidea, so I can not confirm. One option is to find out who I am and possibly email me. Sorry for being so cryptic. Zhatt 22:04, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I do think I am who you think I am. :-) You played the paladin, if I recall correctly.  — Saxifrage |  22:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Correct. I find it quite interesting that we are to bump into each other here. I also thank you for your input into the Dominion of Canada debate. Zhatt 22:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, is that where you saw me! That page has been an unreadable annoyance on my watchlist for a while—unreadable because it's always the same back-and-forth, and annoying because I actually might want to participate in working on the rest of the article so I don't want to take it off my watchlist. The annoyance just got to a critical mass and I wasn't feeling complacent enough this time to just remove it and wash my hands of the mess.  — Saxifrage |  22:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely Canada[edit]

I see. Well thank you for verifying this with me, because I definitely found that poll rather interesting. Winnermario 21:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Behaviour[edit]

Well put, Sax. I may copy that for future use (with apprpriate attribution) if you don't mind. Ground Zero | t 19:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute with ArmchairVexillologistDon[edit]

I have filed a "Request for Comment" regarding the behaviour of ArmchairVexillologistDon. Perhaps I am being naive, but I am hoping that hearing the views of others will convince him that his approach has often not been in keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia community. I am wondering if you would be willing to certify the basis for the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ArmchairVexillologistDon. I don't want to draw you into this matter, but I need another user's certification before it can go forward and have always admired the polite way that you have insisted on civility in Wikipedia. HistoryBA 02:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI Request for Mediation[edit]

Dear Saxifrage,

Seeing your membership in a club that asks for civility amongst editors, I am forwarding this note to you--which I just wrote today and posted on the talk page of the article on the philosophy Aesthetic Realism in Wikipedia. Aesthetic Realism is a kind and important philosophy.

I will be posting a similar note on others in your club in the hopes of an amicable solution.

Arnold Perey, PhD --Aperey 18:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


So much abusive language, and so much reverting and re-editing has been used against two editors, myself and TS, that it has become impossible to edit this article fairly.

There is no dialog, there is no agreement. Instead, several other editors (Outerlimits, Jonathunder, Marinero, CDThieme, and Michaelbluejay) have imposed a false and misleading point of view and put aside the views of others regardless of how many times these views were expressed, documented, sourced.

In fact one can see a definite smear agenda behind their edits--not a legitimate point of view at all. One of the revealing characteristics is that they see no value in any view but their own and claim absolute truth for it.

Therefore I am calling for this article to be frozen at the July 12th date, 16:29, 12 July 2005. This is when the only agreed-on version was posted. It was at that point unfrozen by Thryduulf.

And following that, I call for mediation: a civilized dialog between the contending parties for the purpose of finding out the truth and getting it into the Wikipedia article.

For: Regardless of the truth, regardless of the points of view of others, these several individuals or aliases have imposed their notion and attacked anyone who disagreed. Their attacks can be seen in the Talk pages (unless, of course, there is a way of deleting permanently and selectively and they have used it).

You will note that, as is standard procedure in such attacks, the aggressors justify themselves by crying out that they have been attacked, censored, etc.

However, the Talk archives will show what actually has happened. They will show the extensive reasoning and documentation which I an a few others have posted and which it has been in the interest of the attackers to ignore or to smear--as if by putting a contemptuous label on something that is true they have made it false.

The two most attacked sections at this time are:

1. The introduction, beginning "Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded in 1941 by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel..."

2. And the section titled "===Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality==="

However, the attempt to smear can be seen elsewhere.

The website "The Crazy World of Michael Bluejay" <http:michaelbluejay.com> has a collection of misrepresentations from sources with their own agendas--many of them anonymous--and is a focal point for the persons whose "editing" I regard as, essentially, vandalism.

--Aperey 17:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Advice[edit]

Hi Saxifrage. I am looking for a little advice (or perhaps just a reality check). OK, I am as biased as the next academic, and I am working on balancing things especially on the NLP article. The rigorous research on NLP always concludes that NLP is scientifically unsupported and pseudoscientific. There is little I can do about that apart from find other views of NLP proponents. But I keep getting accusations of vandalism, fake official warnings being posted on my page, and repeat and extremely nagging questions from Comaze on the discussion page even after the questions have been repeatedly answered. He is seriously disruptive and and that seems to be his strategy in general (one of deletion and denial), and he has been doing this for months. He refuses to compromise even when compromises have been regularly offered, and also takes any questioning by other NLP proponents as an excuse to make extensive changes to the whole page, and in doing so makes other surreptitious changes. Other editors have voiced the desire to have him permanently banned. He seems to be bent on antagonising any neutral editors including other neutral oriented NLP advocates. He has been doing this for so long that it seems to be becoming an acceptable way to behave for some other editors. Any suggestions?HeadleyDown 04:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have offered a comprimise to the most pressing issue on HeadleyDown. regards, --Comaze 23:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Your perspective[edit]

Hello, again, Saxifrage. I need some opinions and maybe some help, but I didn't know who to bother. So I came to you. As I like to draw, I was looking up perspective when I noticed that it was a complete mess that had not been seriously touch for nearly a year. I took it upon myself to merged all the useful information from Linear perspective and Foreshortening into Perspective (graphical). One of my questions is, do you think this is appropriate? Are linear perspective and graphical perspective fundamentally different, or is it the same thing, as I assume. If not, I will revert all my edits, but if I was correct in my actions, this is where you can help me. After these merges, the Perspective (graphical) article is a complete mess, and I tend to give it a near total re-write. After or during this rewrite, could you be a second pair of eyes, checking for grammar, spelling and any silly errors? I don't expect much, just a quick glance once and a while will do, but if you're really interested, I wouldn't mind help with the re-writing. If you are unable to help me in any of these areas, no-problem, I'm able to do it on my own. If you are able, note that I may not seriously start until about Monday as I am bust the next few days and a mutual friend from Mission will be visiting for the weekend. Thanks for reading, whatever your response. Zhatt 23:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To make things easy for you, here is the orriginal Perspective (graphical) and here is the orriginal Linear perspective. Thanks. Zhatt 23:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I can certainly keep an eye on it and see what I can nudge here or there. I think this is probably a good idea, and there is precedent for merging such closely related articles. I can't commit to a certain amount of work on the article as I've been fairly busy recently, but I can certainly click by occasionally and I've put it on my Watchlist.  — Saxifrage |  02:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Zhatt 16:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note[edit]

Thanks for your note Saxifrage. We now have a mediator, Essjay. --Aperey 18:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOVenforcer's hitlist[edit]

Ah, User:NPOVenforcer has added you to his enemy's list on his User page. Welcome to the club! The few, the proud, the people who have pissed off NPOVenforcer!! Kit 05:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

He's also backing the same anonymous editor on Capitalism and related political ideologies for which he has added User:Mihnea Tudoreanu to his hitlist. Given that thus far he only champions that anonymous editor's work and has yet to look for an NPOV issue elsewhere to 'enforce', I find it extremely hard to believe his assertions that they are different people.

The irony is that if he keeps up this sort of behavior he probably will have a "cabal" of people who oppose him. Kit 09:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

p.s. I find it especially amusing that he has not only accused me of libelling him, but libelling his user page as well. I didn't know it was possible to libel inanimate objects! Kit 09:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


I created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NPOVenforcer. I dont like being listed. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 12:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As of this time, User:NPOVenforcer has been indefinitely blocked by User:Ral315 as per the reasons stated on the RfC above. The hitlist has also been removed. Kit 07:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Civility[edit]

You are so darn civil. You really are a model for the rest of us. I caught your comment on Skookum1's page, and think that it was so well worded. Keep up the great work. Ground Zero | t 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! To be honest I've had a tendency to come off rather scolding in cases like that, but when I give myself the time to review and rewrite a sensitive message it comes out much more in the spirit that I intend. So, I'm not perfect, but thanks for noticing the effort I put in. :-)  — Saxifrage |  23:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please assist[edit]

Since we opened an arbitration request I've been subjected to personal attack from the group of users who have compaints against them. I just did some strikethrus on the Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming and some refactoring and just want to check I'm within policy. I just don't know how to best handle these guys. I really want to restore some civility on this page, but we've got so radically different views about what is NPOV, I am losing confidence in the system. --Comaze 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice Saxifrage. It came at just the right time. I'll become less involved in editing while arbitration is open. I'm sure the descision by arbitration will resolved some of the disputes and conduct issues one way or the other. --Comaze 10:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"MinefieldAartilces" and re Your comment "handled"[edit]

At talk/NPOVenforcer, I happened to read you along with others and seeing this ,

If the assumption[of bad faith] is correct, then the assumer and the project are no better off than the previous case where bad faith was true and is easily handled by the system.

I would say that herein lies a problem: 'handled by the system'.What you write is evidently sense and more, but I have picked on you because you have based yourself on this assumption of WP handling.

If editing is indeed made fom nuclear or individual reason, well,OK... meaning other nuclear editors can check and control.

This is not my experience. There is in places more than a nuclear approach, and thus the system cannot effect the 'handling'. The essence of source is different from the essence of interpretation and my experience of this is dire. Dispute resolution whilst there has to be single truth or NPOV does not seem to function-though I seem never to have experienced it, in fact. Arbcom on the other hand does not deal with content.

You seem to be clued up with the scene - may I ask you whether expression of bad faith can be justified if true, ie proveable? And if it is not nuclear, but part of widespread insistence on hagiography, is it justifable to make full note of it? I tried asking Jimbo which ruled-a majority of source or a majority of users, and received no answer. I asked him because I saw he had written that majority opinion rules. He himself there also referred to something like handle-able .

Yes, I am up at Arbcom, so no I am not disinterested but am somewhere experienced and due for some answers to my pre-emptions and what-all. I base myself in verifiability and I offer others to present source. I am in a difficult field- a historical minefield which has not yet been de-activated. In so far as the Vatican figures prominently, your handled has not worked. In effect the history is part of the present, as the history does and will more so, effect this global force.

I do have suggestion as to the leaping of the hurdles that apparent NPOV requires us to leap, which I stated at Vatican Bank/talk. I have not made a great study of WP itself, and my suggestion comes not from top-down policy, but from how to actually get and keep Articles on the road in a global variation of sources and interpretation for the 'minefield Articles'.

I will understand that the new year applies already to some,and to some not at all- who start their year at other dates, and record other years reached. Of itself this reflects my practical view that all contradictions of POV be reported/sourced and that that is the NPOV. In short I do not see that WP will or can handle a single NPOV, but only order multiple POV source. I do not say this lightly-as I can prove at least contradiction within what should be hard and fast and proved beyond doubt.

But, H.N.Yr all the same! EffK 21:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Diaeresis[edit]

Hey, responded on my talk. : ) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

One question, do you spell facade like façade? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)